The Engine Alliance (EA) has reached a major milestone in the development of its GP7200 engine with delivery of the first four compliance/flight test engines for the Airbus A380.

Airbus will install nacelle and airplane system components on these engines starting in October to support the upcoming A380/GP7200 flight test program.

"Everyone on the Engine Alliance team is very proud today," said Bruce Hughes, EA president. "This is a goal we have been working towards since GE and Pratt & Whitney formed the Engine Alliance in 1996 -- to give airlines the best performing, most reliable engine for new, super jumbo aircraft such as the A380.

We are particularly pleased because our compliance engines are right on the Airbus fuel burn specification."

Do we know which test airframe these engines will be installed on? For an engine installation on a 4 engine jet, usually they will ship 5+ engines, so there are spares available. This will prevent any delays in the test program should an engine change be required, like for a bird injestion.

Quoting Sq212 (Reply 1):So we will know by year end which engines will out perform the other?

I very much doubt if it will be that clear cut. Engines don't compete on only one criterion but on many. One will do better than the other on X but less well on Y. Think of the PW2000 vs. RB211-535 on the 757. Each had strengths and weaknesses. Each airline had to decide what was more important for them. There's unlikely to be a "better" engine on the A380.

Quoting PM (Reply 4):I very much doubt if it will be that clear cut. Engines don't compete on only one criterion but on many. One will do better than the other on X but less well on Y. Think of the PW2000 vs. RB211-535 on the 757. Each had strengths and weaknesses. Each airline had to decide what was more important for them. There's unlikely to be a "better" engine on the A380.

True words my friend.

It's not that easy to tell. And they're all very good manufacturers so i doubt that any engine will do "much" better than another one.

Regards
jush

There is one problem with airbus. Though their products are engineering marvels they lack passion, completely.

Quoting Keesje (Thread starter):We are particularly pleased because our compliance engines are right on the Airbus fuel burn specification."

That's huge. At this point, engines are usually 1 or 2% below spec. Therefore, I would *guess* that there still can be another 1% of fuel burn cut out. However, for the Alliance to get any orders I know they had to promise a big improvement in fuel burn... so it might not be the case this time around.

Quoting Sq212 (Reply 1):So we will know by year end which engines will out perform the other?

Quoting PM (Reply 4):There's unlikely to be a "better" engine on the A380.

Well said, unless one is a dog (e.g., the JT8D on the 727 couldn't be kicked off. The pw4098 was a black eye for Pratt...) How are you doing?

Quoting PM (Reply 4):I very much doubt if it will be that clear cut. Engines don't compete on only one criterion but on many. One will do better than the other on X but less well on Y. Think of the PW2000 vs. RB211-535 on the 757. Each had strengths and weaknesses. Each airline had to decide what was more important for them. There's unlikely to be a "better" engine on the A380.

Very true, although on the other hand, many airlines have a long term working relationship with one engine maker, and they practically don't order the other. CX comes to mind with their RR only policy, at least when RR is a choice I think (except those ex-SQ 747s).

That's too simple. One will be stronger, but one will cost less to maintain. One will be quieter, and one will be more fuel efficient. Mechanics of an airline will like one engine over the other because of how similar they are to other engines in that airline's fleet, and so on...

I'd love to be the exec that gets to select the powerplant for her/his airline!

SparkingWave

Flights to the moon and all major space stations. At Pan Am, the sky is no longer the limit!

Quoting HanginOut (Reply 9):Could someone tell me what the strengths and weaknesses between the two engines are?

My friend Lightsaber can tell you much more but, as I understand it, the PW2000 on the 757 used far less fuel ( ) but required far more maintenance ( ) than the RB211. So, you're buying a fleet of 757s. Do you go for a more economical engine that needs to be taken off the wing (relatively) frequently or one that uses more fuel but will fly for twice as long between visits to the doctor? And that was just two factors out of many.

Quoting N328KF (Reply 18):So one question that I've always been curious of — why did RR and GE/PW develop new engines for a power range that is already covered well by the 777 engines?

Many reasons including ancillary requirements and fan diameter.

The GP 7200 is a risk sharing project between GE and PW using elements of both companies engines, as neither company wanted to finance the project or work it up alone. Take the best parts of the PW4000 and GE90 family and build an engine...saves on development costs as well. Each company had existing technology to bring to the deal, which would mean lower development cost.

The GE90 family is too big and the PW4000 has its weaknesses. The GP7200 is a hybrid which eliminates both factors.

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 11):How these customers go will show you which engine has the lead. I know the alliance had to work very hard to match RR...

The EK deal alone (plus Air France) was a major coup for GP. FedEx have also specified the GP7200 on theirs.

Quoting WhiteHatter (Reply 19):The EK deal alone (plus Air France) was a major coup for GP. FedEx have also specified the GP7200 on theirs.

Korean have too, making the customer base four.

I'm still convinced that the Emirates deal went to the EA at least partly because of RR's success on other EK types. When they ordered their A380s EK had RR A330s, RR 777s and had RR A340s on order. Choosing RR for their A380s would have put all their eggs in one basket. (This was prior to the 777ER order and before they leased CFM A343s.) Their earlier success may have cost RR this huge order.

Quoting PM (Reply 17):My friend Lightsaber can tell you much more but, as I understand it, the PW2000 on the 757 used far less fuel ( Smile ) but required far more maintenance ( Sad ) than the RB211.

I wish I could tell you more about the two A380 engines but intead I point you to post 21. You have the important part of the RB211 vs pw2000 argument in that nice concise statement.

Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 21):Put together some data from both engines. Installed SFC numbers are still yet to be finalized, but there is not much either of the engines give away to the other.

Nice data!

Oh, One correction. I should have written "normally at this point an engine is about 1% ABOVE its target TSFC." oops. So i do expect the vendors to improve their TSFC just a tad before entry into service. (Mostly by final tuning of the stators and other control loops.)